The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
MitchPaglia
Con (against)
Winning
58 Points

With John McCain, the highest chance of World War III will be upon us.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 14 votes the winner is...
MitchPaglia
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,026 times Debate No: 5240
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (111)
Votes (14)

 

Johnicle

Pro

Warmongering... John McCain seems to be receiving this adjective more and more lately. Throughout this round I will prove that John McCain is a warmonger but more importantly, he will give us the greatest chance to be a part of the 3rd World War (which is obviously a bad thing)...

==========

Beginning with quotes from John McCain:

Questioner- "President Bush has talked about us staying in Iraq for 50 years"
John McCain- "Maybe a hundred. That be fine with me..."

John McCain- "We were in two wars today, combating it, and there are other places in the world where we may have to."

John McCain- "My friends, I know how to handle the Iranians, and I'll handle them."

John McCain- "These young people that are in this crowd, my friends, I'm going to be asking you to serve."

John McCain- "And it's going to be very expensive, and it's going to be long and hard and difficult."

John McCain- "There's going to be more wars."

(If you're interested: )

John McCain- ""Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory"

==========

Interesting quote from: http://www.lewrockwell.com...

"Only a few years ago, he called for "forceful, coercive action" against North Korea over a couple of faulty reports of that country's nuclear capacity. On Iraq, he wants war, war, war, starting with a huge increase in bombing, which, he says, has been "extremely limited."... On China, he warns of the country's "increasingly aggressive role in the region." For now, McCain would permit China to enter the WTO"

(continued)

"Speaking of human rights, it's true that he was a POW, probably the only thing voters know about him. But what was he doing before he was imprisoned? He was part of an aerial bombing squad that attacked rural areas surrounding Hanoi, causing more than a million deaths and injuries from 1965 to 1968. He flew 23 of those bombing missions, and he even admits to bombing a power plant in "a heavily populated part of Hanoi." Even today, he says of the killing: "nobody made me fly over Vietnam. That's what I was trained to do and that's what I wanted to do."

(finally)

"But couldn't Congress restrain a President McCain? No chance. He doesn't believe in that, and Clinton has already shown how an executive can attack another country without asking any elected official. But couldn't other countries restrain him? No way. He doesn't believe in that either. To his mind, the purpose of Nato and the UN is ratify US foreign wars after the fact-an impulse that makes him even more dangerous than Clinton."

==========

With all of these quotes and all of this proof, you have to see that John McCain is a warmonger. If he had complete control of our army (which the president essentially has) then we would have gone to war with Iraq, Afganistan, North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran. Not only this, but he has shown that he is willing to re-initiate the draft (I can get more proof if you want)... Simply put, he is the most dangerous presidential candidate to ever come this close to the white house and if he is elected, there is no doubt that the greatest chance of world war will be upon us. I can not support a man like this.

Pleas vote PRO!

(By the way, I do not support neither Obama nor McCain... I support Bob Barr... Libertarianism FOREVER! Although it is irrelevant to this debate)
MitchPaglia

Con

"[John McCain] is a genuine war hero who deserves our respect". Those words were spoken by Senator Barack Obama in April of 2008. Keeping true to the idea of having a clean campaign, both candidates are making sure that whatever "arguments or disagreements that they have is purely political". Those again were the words of Barack Obama. I would like to point out that one argument is presupposing the other assuming that if the first one is true, the second one must be true as well. In this case, If John McCain is a warmonger, and then we will have World War III to deal with. One does not necessarily mean that the other will follow, and that is because of what World War really means. Lacking enough space, I will complete that part of my argument in the next post.

First, I would like to point out that I am not criticizing my opponent in the least bit of what kind of person he is, however I find his comment horribly inaccurate and is defaming John McCain's good name. McCain who has served in Vietnam valiantly, has explained before that he has been clear about how he feels about war "and [his] experiences with it." With such an outlandish comment, the burden of proof most deservedly falls upon my opponent. I will show that he is misinterpreting the quotes that he uses and that they also are coming from an unreliable source.

My opponent has tried to use John McCain's own words against him. The problem with this is where there is a lack of clarity through context, my opponent replaces with false interpretation. President Bush has indeed spoke about us staying in Iraq for 50 more years if needed, and McCain did respond by saying a hundred would be fine with him. Let's examine this further. When George Bush made that comment, he was speaking in the context of how long it would take for the "job to be finished" per say. The job will be finished when we have completed rebuilding the new government of Iraq allowing for peaceful transfers of power and allowing the Shiites and Sunnis to finally work cooperatively in their carelessly drawn borders. When John McCain made that comment about staying for 50 more years, it was in the context that he would be willing to do whatever it would take to complete this mission. He was not saying that he would want to stay in Iraq simply for the sake of fighting. John McCain does not want to fight a war just because it is something to do or something that he even likes to do for that matter. If John McCain were to encourage war during his Presidency, it would be for substantial reasons. Helping rebuild Iraq includes helping them develop into a full sovereign and democratic nation, where they can fight their own battles with their own police forces. Iraq is well on its way of becoming sovereign and Democratic considering that their Constitution, which is based off of ours, the only original Constitution left from a Countries origin, is almost completed. The Iraqi police and military have made great strides in their progress of defending themselves. Since both of those goals are near completion, we wouldn't need to be in Iraq for 50 more years, or 100 for that matter. I would also like to point out that John McCain has been accused of following too closely with President Bush's policies. If that is the case, we can look at the resolution that was signed by President Bush, the first signed timetable for Iraq that states ALL troops will be gone from Iraq by June 30, 2011. If one is going to claim that he is going to be just like President Bush, then with that reasoning we know that McCain is going to end the war before his first term is over.

"There are other places in the world where we may have to". Here is another example of a misconstrued quote. John McCain was not subtly hinting at the idea of war, he was stating a fact about the possibility of war. War is always a possibility among nations that are not both Democracies. He was stating that something may or may not happen which would need to involve US intervention, in essence, he is saying that he can't predict the future. John McCain has never made any direct or even indirect comments towards the idea of invasion. Concerning Iran and how he knows how to deal with them my opponent again is assuming that John McCain means invading and going to war. What I want to know is this, for both his "we may have to" and "Iran" comments, where is the proof that he is definitively or even likely talking about an actual invasion of foreign soil where is the evidence that shows my opponent is simply not stating something that he ASSUMES John McCain means. There is none, and the assumptions that my opponent makes is purely that of fabrication and misinterpretation.

Looking at the next quote about how "There's going to be more wars", I'm going to ask my opponent to post his source on this so I can glance at the entire article and time of the statement. Concerning his last quote, I believe that is a moot point considering that Russia has indeed pulled all their troops out of Georgia and has formally recognized the two new sovereign nations that have developed within the Georgian region.

The next set of arguments that my opponent tries to make is through the single source of a Mr. Lew Rockwell, an article that was written a whole 8 years ago, making it incredibly outdated and irrelevant. But let's forget about the time for a moment and just look at the arguments that Rockwell makes. He talks about how McCain called for "'forceful, coercive action' against North Korea over a couple of 'faulty reports" of North Koreas nuclear capabilities.'" That's very interesting since North Korea has tested their nuclear capabilities before, defying international law. http://news.bbc.co.uk.... North Korea openly admitted to having nuclear weapons and bragged about their testing of them. North Korea was indeed a threat and the international response was through economic sanctions. Most would argue that those are forceful and coercive. Those two words are very broad and do not mean field combat in every situation. In the end North Korea surrendered their ambitions and went along fully with disarmament features.

Rockwell's comment about him wanting to have a "...huge increase in bombing" does not show McCain being a warmonger either. First, McCain's was speaking about a nation that we were already at war with. Second, the reason he wanted more bombing was strictly strategic to enhance the United States position during that conflict. Being in one war and making a suggestion about how to improve the military's chance of victory hardly makes someone a war monger. I also don't see how letting China go into the WTO is a problem. Trade helps improve relations with other nations, causing war to be even less likely than it was before.

What are probably most insulting are the implications that are being made from his military service. When he was making those aerial bombing runs, he was under direct orders to do so. He enlisted into the military because he believed in the betterment of his country and whatever commands were giving to him, he trusted as well that it was in the United States best interest to follow. Now whether you believe this rationalizes the bombings or not is beside the point. The question isn't how moral was John McCain. The question is whether or not he will lead us to war. Being under direct orders and acting as he was told shows that John McCain would take life when he believes it was necessary. If he is Commander in Chief, he no doubt will understand when our country, if we should need to, will go to war. I have already explained that John McCain won't go to war for no reason and that he isn't heartless so we can be sure that he will not declare any pointless wars that are of no use except for the loss of human life.
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

Thanks for accepting the debate and good luck!

Off the first paragraph--> I agree Mr. McCain is a war hero just like the 600 people that were in his POW camp. HOWEVER, I am not voting for him to be my next president because he is a war hero. Being a war hero and being a good president are two separate entities. Keeping that in mind, we look to the end of the paragraph where you claim that I have to prove that McCain = WWIII straight up, and this is not true. Analyze the resolution at all and you will realize that the words, "highest chance" appears and it appears for a reason. It is impossible to ever warrant the future, but when you talk about what gives a high chance of something to happen, THEN the debate ability appears. Therefore, I will warrant that the voting of John McCain into presidency DOES give us the highest chance of WWIII then any other event in history. I challenge my opponent to prove this wrong.

Off paragraph 2--> Mr. McCain has talked about how awful war is. But then why does he talk about going to war EVERY TIME a foreign problem occurs? (examples): Georgia invades Russia, no media covers it. Russia invades Georgia in revenge John McCain wants to go to war. Iran MIGHT be getting nukes (there is YET to be substantial proof of how close they are) and John McCain wants to go to war with them. HE HAS CRITISIZED OBAMA FOR WANTING TO TALK ABOUT IT. Diplomacy is HARDLY an option of John McCain. The quotes from round one (particularly the 2000 quotes) proves that John McCain is willing to go to war if he A) doesn't know the whole situation or B) doesn't know if this possible threat is a threat. Do you really want another war in Iraq (in Iran) where you're wrong about WMD's and do you really want another cold war or do you really want a war in some other country that John McCain considers a threat?!?!? If Iran gets nukes, they will let us know. The whole reason ANY country wants them is negotiation purposes. Don't make the mistake of preemption with John McCain. This threat of WWIII is GREATEST with John McCain.

Off paragraph 3: Job to be finished… HA… The "job" was to remove the WMD's and we were successful before we even went into Iraq. Let me take you back to 2002 when we sent the UN into Iraq to peacefully look for nukes in Iraq (since they broke the treaty they signed). The UN finds nothing, but of course Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain begin to convince us that they could have hid them (which is possible)… BUT THEY WERE COMPLETELY AND 100% WRONG. But that is not what I am worried about I am worried about John McCain STILL saying he has supported the war throughout the entire time. "NO REGRETS!" Let's just say that McCain leads us into Georgia/Russia… a half of a year later, Russia is out… but now wouldn't we be committed to "finishing" a totally different war with Russia?!? Mr. McCain, THIS IS WHY YOU USE DIPLOMACY. But yet, he has yet to show any signs of negotiations with anyone.

"There are other places in the world where we may have to" paragraph: Here, I simply want to challenge my opponent one thing. I have found several quotes hinting toward John McCain wanting to go to war. I want my opponent to find a quote where he wants to negotiate (or use diplomacy). Because if he thinks that there are other places in the world "where we may have to"… I want to know that we ACTUALLY have to and not that HE only thinks so.

CHALLENGE: Find me a quote where John McCain will use diplomacy.

While looking for you speech request of when he said "there are going to be more wars", I found another interesting quote.

From- http://mccainsource.com...
Quote: McCain: "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran." In April 2007, McCain, speaking to voters in South Carolina, responded to a question about Iran by singing "Bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann." A man had asked McCain about sending "an air mail message to Tehran." McCain answered by singing, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." He then added: "Iran is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

But as far as the speech goes, this seems to be closest to the report on the speech at least. An article liked you asked for: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

What makes me so certain that John McCain gives us the greatest chance for WWIII is that he says straight up that there are going to be other wars rather than we are going to have to try our best to avoid possible wars of the future. In one second he says there is nothing worse than war, than the next second he says there is going to be more wars. Well Mr. McCain, HOW ARE WE GOING TO AVOID THESE WARS?!?!? And as far as the Georgian conflict, it is just the way that McCain responded to it that makes me EXTREMELY nervous.

Next Paragraph (8 year old article): If they break international law, it should be the UN's problem, not John McCain. But of course, John McCain (and all of America) think that international problems are there problems, thus they call for action against all countries with nukes (except for the original 5 allowed by the UN)… The article IS 8 years old which shows that John McCain has been calling for action against countries for a long time now. I have yet to be presented another person that is so aggressive THUS he gives the greatest chance for WWIII.

2nd to last paragraph--> McCain's desire goes beyond the simple request for the increase in just bombing. It's the increase in death and war. He says war is so bad, well that is because of action LIKE increase in bombing. SURE our position in the war could have been strengthened, but is it really worth the innocent death?

As far as the last paragraph goes, I have no problem with the actions of him during war. But I think that those actions may (and have due to his own words and action) have corrupted him into thinking that war is an answer that we must turn to often.

In the end, I have yet to see a man so close to the presidency that seems destined to go to war more than John McCain. I'm not saying that WWIII will happen with him… but I am saying that he gives the greatest chance for it. Even if the WWIII level is reached, war is still inevitable under his reign as president and I can't vote for that. Because of all of these reasons, I urge you to vote PRO.

Thank You!
MitchPaglia

Con

The very idea that we are debating this topic proves that I'm right in saying you have the burden of proof. Your proposing that we accept something that is outside of what the mainstream public widely and overwhelmingly accepts. Since you are making this proposition that is contrary to popular notion, you have to show all of us why we should change our way of thinking. You also want to say that this is the largest threat in history for WWIII, might I remind you how close we were to nuclear proliferation during the Cold War?

I will still prove this wrong however by pointing out several things. Its ludicrous to say that McCain is going to be the "highest chance" of WWIII, since the pegs have been in motion looooong before John McCain was in office. It takes a lot more than 4 years my friend, to destroy international relations, and in fact has been occurring ever since WWI and the Treaty of Versailles. This leads me to define World War. No complicated definitions really. Both previous World Wars have involved all the worlds top military establishments with the largest players being the ones who have those capabilities at that time. Let's address who they are for the current day and age. The United States, Great Britain, Russia, China, Australia, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, France, Italy, Germany, and I'm sure you can think of a few if not many many more that have incredible influence in the worlds affairs now since the establishment of the European Union and United Nations. Ladies and Gentleman, it would take the greater majority of this entire planet to get involved for there to be a World War. This is something that is simply beyond the scope of John McCain's ability, and these course of events have been occurring long before John McCain was an influential politician. It is these previous events that have led up to this "high chance" of World War III, clearly much bigger than John McCain. Iv already shown how my opponent was wrong on North Korea, an issue that no one is going to pin on John McCain. Its possible that he is terribly misguided in several other points as well, in fact he is, especially concerning Iran.

Again, you have yet to prove that John McCain has said that he wanted to go to war with Russia. Talking sternly doesn't always mean war. Please provide some evidence if your going to be making a claim like that, because so far, you haven't proven anything yet.

Concerning Iran, I really do not know how much "talking that you think is necessary, considering that the United States and United Nations are already on their THIRD round of economic sanctions with Iran. When does talking become redundant and seen as useless? Also, are you going to trust someone who says that the true Holocaust hasn't happened yet? That the state of Israel, is going to be wiped off the face of the world? You think someone who speaks like that is honestly using that nuclear energy for power? Oh yea, I really trust this guy. The only type of power he's using it for is nuclear power. There are only two reasons you import plutonium. 1.make nuclear weapons 2.make nuclear weapons stronger. I will now direct your attention to these four articles

http://abcnews.go.com...- This one shows that the materials all were but assembled for the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, (i.e... nerve and mustard gas present). It's most likely that if the sanctions were taken off of Iraq, then Saddam would have continued with the process of making those bombs. Also it explains how the investigations were continued and the investigators received pretty much balogney, to put it politely from the Iraqis This next article explains through various citing that you can access yourself on how the Americans were the ones that supplied Iraq with the capabilities of weapons-

http://jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com...

Here you will find how Iran is indeed making Nuclear weapons
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

and here you will find how Iran is also helping Iraqi insurgents
http://abcnews.go.com... article explains how Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents.

Interesting, and you want to talk about all this hmmm? Along with what I said in my introduction, the pegs have been in motion long before John McCain came to town. So the quotes that you actually used in face show that he A) Knows the entire situation as it really is AND B) knows exactly what a threat is when it is staring him in the face. So if it takes another "war in Iraq" with Iran, considering that WMD chemicals were available to Iraq and not the type that most Americans are thinking of when they hear WMD's, then yes I would feel comfortable that I have a leader who is standing up to a threat that has been posed long before he entered the presidential realm. It's very clear that Iran does have them, and they DON'T want us to know about them since they are hiding them. If you want to know who the largest threat to World War III is, then consider it Iran and those who want to TALK with them. You point out how John McCain has been looking at these countries for eight years now and that is an example of how aggressive and warmongering he is. Well, I just showed how he has the proper foresight and how he knows exactly what is going on. It seems to me that John McCain has actually been trying to prevent any wars before they turn into World Wars by nipping the problem in the bud. John McCain wants to take out the biggest threat in this world and in my eyes he is the biggest cause in PREVENTING World War III.

I have clearly shown how the United Nations inspectors were pretty much "duped" and that we knew the Iraqis had weapons considering we were a huge supplier in that cause. You posed a second challenge to me that is just as fallacious as the first one, I'm sorry. You have found several quotes in which you THINK John McCain is hinting towards going to war, and I thank you for posting that article, yet I severely doubt that him not even explaining what his initial plans are, that you can go that far out on a limb and suggest that he is going to cause World War. All the nations that you have posed as potential ones that we are going to invade, are countries that are being looked at on a global scale where we do indeed have allies. Like North Korea, international pressure can work. Besides, Israel is the most threatened by Iran, and you can be darn sure that Israel is going to take action long before they get a permission slip from the United States, United Nations, or anyone else for that matter.

Concerning your address on the deaths of those who are being innocently bombed, that not so much an issue considering that the United States does what is called "strategic bombing" which is guided by lasers and GPS. No civilians are targeted for bombing and military installations would probably be held away from the general population, because it is too condensed and the civilians would have enough common sense to move out of the area.

I shown consistently, time and time again throughout this debate, how my opponent is using false logic and misconstrued "facts". Please listen to reason, like I know all of you do and don't give credence to my opponents argument.

Thank you very much for your time,

-Mitchell Paglia
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

To be honest, this round has been spread out so quickly to make it so that each argument hardly holds any weight. So I want to see the third round to direct the debate into voting issues for the judges. By me continuing line by line arguing, I think it just makes it a messy debate. I will be pointing out important arguments, but besides that, it will basically be summarizing how I support my burden of proof.

First of all, however, my opponent did not show when McCain would be willing to use diplomacy. He did say that diplomacy is useless… but this is simply ridiculous. We should use diplomacy because it A) It works most of the time and B) Violence only comes when it fails. However, McCain only wants to use violence. HE CRITISIZED OBAMA FOR WANTING TO USE DIPLOMACY. Violence should only be used when there is an imminent threat. However, in Iran, there is no imminent threat. (Cross apply the 10 years to nuke predictions in 1990, 1995, 2000, and even 2005.) There is still not enough intelligence to be able to go to war over Iran. Yet McCain says "I know how to deal with Iran and I'll deal with them." Well, you have yet to say that you're willing to use diplomacy, so what other option is there… war?

At this point, I would like to point out how easily World Wars can take place. In WWII, possibly the biggest war this world has ever seen, it was stated by the matter of a couple invasions. ONE LEADER, Adolf Hitler. I'm not saying that McCain will be the next Hitler, but it doesn't take much to get people even more ticked off at us. The current foreign relations are not good at all. We've invaded Afghanistan and then invaded Iraq with false pretenses. America to Iraq could be like Germany to Poland. Perhaps America to Iran will be like Japan to America (Pearl Harbor)…

I've asked my opponent to point to another action that gives us a greater chance for WWIII. He has given none. He says that there is not a very good chance for WWIII, but that has nothing to do with which ‘is greater'… Let me explain, each president that we have offers us a 2% chance of WWIII. With McCain, there could be a 2.1% chance and the resolution would be proven true. You say that McCain gives us the least amount of chance for WWIII, BUT your only analysis is that ‘he knows what is going on.' To be honest, he may THINK he knows what's going on. But ever since he has become so proud of ALWAYS being in favor of the war in Iraq. That would mean that he has always (and STILL) been in favor of invading under false pretenses.

Now, you can make all the side arguments you want, but the aggressive nature that John McCain has taken with EVERY foreign issue has shown his war mongering nature… and since my opponent has offered NO other people that would offer a greater chance, by default you vote PRO. I do have the burden of proof. And I HAVE proven that John McCain offers a greater chance of WWIII then anyone else. (and the anyone in this round is no one.)

Because of all of this, I urge you to vote PRO.

Thank you and good luck round 3!
MitchPaglia

Con

What is so extremely frustrating with reading your arguments over again is that it's clear that you haven't read my arguments. You make several claims that I don't address the issues when you have challenged me on them, which is simply a lie. Either you are intentionally lying or are mistaken. Because of that you are still using faulty reasoning and coming up with invalid conclusions. I will address all of them. You may go back and check if you wish. I highly encourage all the readers of this debate to double check as well, skim if you had just read the previous rounds in this same sitting.

My opponent claims that the arguments have been "spread out so quickly" that each argument holds any weight. Each argument that I broke down was in response to his and was properly addressing his "points" It may be HIS points that don't hold much weight and because of me showing that, I could see why he wouldn't want to talk about them. Here are a few of them.

Foremost, he says that I haven't explained about who is a greater chance. That is untrue, I stated TWICE in my last post about what I called the "peg argument". The entire power grabbing game in Europe and Asia and later the rest of the world, started while the United States was isolationist. Long before John McCain came into the picture. Any action that John McCain is taking is because he has proper foresight and knows exactly what the situation is between the nations of the world and their interaction with each other and the United States, which I will show a in the next few paragraphs. Also, as I pointed out in my last post concerning Iran, Israel would attack Iran (which my opponent claims will start WWIII), long before they get a permission slip from the U.S. or the U.N.

My opponent said that McCain is making false assumptions on Iran. I proved this point in the last argument; I don't think my opponent read the article. If you're willing to take my word for it, I can summarize it for you; otherwise you can check it out yourself. It says that Iran does indeed have nuclear weapons and that it has been PROVEN that they are hiding them and have done so before. Not to mention what President Achmednijad has said about Israel going to be wiped off the planet and the true holocaust has yet to happen. My opponent somehow believes that a man of this nature would simply tell us that he is making them and not hide them. It's even more outrageous that my opponent believes that he is using them for negotiation purposes. Someone who wants to destroy the Holy Land is not trying to negotiate; no one in their right mind can buy that one.

My opponent thinks its right to criticize John McCain because he doesn't want to keep talking with Iran. I say keep talking because, as again my opponent has faulted to note in my last post is that there have been diplomatic talks going on with Iran. Incentives to withdraw the nuclear enrichment and THREE economic sanctions worth of diplomacy. How much more talking is there? I have shown how McCain does know what is going on in the world and Obama doesn't have the courage to stand up to terrorist government organizations. McCain wants to stop Achmedinjiad; Obama wants to whine about it. If it has been proven that Achmedinijad is making weapons and would use them for more than just "negotiation purposes" then wouldn't it be safer to have someone like John McCain preventing that from happening instead of someone who would allow it. Sounds like Obama might be the greatest threat in that case considering that more "diplomacy" would allow Iran to try and hit Israel forcing the rest of the world to intervene causing WWIII. I would also like to not that I had explained in my second post that the Cold War was the closest we have ever gotten to WWIII, that was in response to when he made the claim that John McCain poses the largest threat in HISTORY. You need weapons building for a Cold War. McCain wants to stop amassing of weapons for Iran. Looks like McCain is trying to prevent the conditions for another World War.

John McCain was also right with Iraq, something in my sources that my opponent didn't read. The sales numbers clearly show that we gave Saddam the capabilities of making weapons of mass destruction. He didn't have them built in the sense of what people think when they hear "weapons"; we can thank sanctions on that. But trade was encouraged with Iraq after the fall of the Soviets and selling deadly gasses and toxins was one of the results. Investigators have found these chemicals and if the Sanctions were removed, Saddam would have used those chemicals to make WMD's. Weapons inspectors, who were fooled as my opponent incorrectly asserts, explained later how they were given so much useless information that they could tell was being given to them to distract them. Aerial photos, similar to that taken in Cuba during the Cold war, confirmed the weapons supply cache, and further investigations found the chemicals that we and several European nations gave Saddam. McCain YET AGAIN has proven to be right and continuing with this policy is preventing other countries from holding deadly arsenals of weapons, something that would prevent WWIII.

With this proper foresight that I have repeatedly shown McCain has, we can be damn well certain that he is going to war because he believes that the country is in danger and that it is on our best interests. My opponent thinks that because McCain mentions war when he despises it means he is being hypocritical. McCain knows what war is like and not wanting to go to war without substantial reasoning, which he knows how to find and is aware of in the current stage of events, he wouldn't subject anyone to that unless it was totally necessary. He is more careful and would remain peace time if international ties would call for it. My opponent also hasn't been able to refute my comment about McCain not causing copious amounts of death. I explained previously that with the precision bombing techniques of GPS and lasers, only the targets get hit and not civilians. This makes sense considering that civilians are dying from IEDs planed by insurgents. Not only would McCain be careful with when to bomb, he wouldn't cause undue loss in human life when bombing did occur.

If you think that McCain is too much like Bush, let's just look at the timetable that Bush signed a few weeks ago. The first timetable that he has ever signed for Iraq because he always claimed that the timetable would give the terrorists notification of how long to wait out U.S. occupancy. The full withdrawal date is June 30, 2011. If you want to claim that McCain is following too closely to Bush's policies, then you can be assured that we will be out of Iraq before his first term is over. Obama wants us out completely long before then and before we can finish the job which I outlined in my first argument of finishing establishing the peaceful government bureaucracy there, which is nearly complete. If we left before that, we might have to head back into Iraq to try to fix things and cause more global distrust. Obama again, more capable of bringing us into the third world war.

My opponent tried showing me in the Second round that he didn't have the burden of proof, and now he says that I do? I think that says something about the arguments that he makes. The idea that we are debating this tells us that it's in question whether you think that he is a war monger. My opponent brought this to the table, which tells us that this isn't a predominantly accepted viewpoint and that he certainly does have the burden of proof, something that he has not done.

Ladies and Gentleman,if you must please re-read the arguments that I make because my opponent claims that I haven't refuted his arguments when in fact I have and it is him that has failed to show after my reasoning how his argument holds any water at all and aren't really fake
Debate Round No. 3
111 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SexyLatina 8 years ago
SexyLatina
All of that information in one paragraph? I'm not sure if that's grammatically proper...

In any case, I was just making the point that obviously a bird can't argue. It was a response to your "SexyLatina is a MAN!" few lines. But anyways, I appreciate the diversion.
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
You're welcome. If YOU say my arguments are invalid then it must be true. So I'll just opt out of this exchange' but thanks for your time.
Posted by SexyLatina 8 years ago
SexyLatina
I love your very-conservative wording. Crocodile tears? Wouldn't lift a finger? That's some serious conservativism there. It's very characteristic.

What I want the government to do is provide a reasonable framework for operating, but mostly I want it to leave me alone and let me do my own thing. When it's mysteriously on my phone lines, and I don't have any warning or anything, it's bad. Freedom is more important to me than security, and I think that's where we differ.

In response to your questions about my sexuality, I reply with the following: How did a bird such as yourself learn to speak/type? It's too bad that the ability to reason on a human level didn't come with that.
And finally, your arguments are still invalid.

I appreciate your correction though.
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
You socialists shed crocodile tears over a perceived loss of freedoms while you champion the theft of the produce of others. You, gleefully, vote to deny my freedom to enjoy the fruits of my labor. The reason we no longer have a draft is the result of the feminization of much of America's youth. You want government to nurse you - cradle to grave - but you would not lift a finger to preserve the country that gives you so much. By the way: it is obvious that you are confused/uncertain of your sexuality. It's not about sarcasm/sophistication as you would have us believe. Do you cross dress?
Correction: Governments have no "RIGHTS"; they have POWERS. Only individuals can/do have rights.
Posted by SexyLatina 8 years ago
SexyLatina
magpie, there is no convincing you. I think it's because you have the simple mind of a bird.
Also, you didn't really say anything to respond to what I said. My argument that your arguments are invalid goes unchallenged, my friend. Nothing you can say will get you out of this bind.

I'm not arguing that the law was passed illegitimately, I'm arguing that it's a bad law. Your lack of concern tells me that you refuse to acknowledge anything I say, but I urge you to change your demeanor so as to be more receptive to my correct ideas.

You did say vacuous though. Props for that. What you're missing is that it's not that I fear that my conversations will be monitored. I fear that the government has the LEGAL RIGHT to do so. It's an arbitrary and poorly-defended invasion of privacy.
There's a reason we don't use the draft anymore. It's because people retain all of their rights at all times, including during war.

I do think that it's funny that you keep calling people ideologues, though. It's a funny thing to call someone.
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
Our Constitution is what makes the USA so great. Conservatives regard the constitution as a contract among the people the various states and the federation (federal government). We are strict constructionists. The constitution allows for temporary exclusions - Marshal Law. The congress passed the Patriot Act and the president signed it.
Those who complain about the Patriot act and cower in fear over the belief that their vacuous conversations are of interest to anyone - let alone the FBI - are just plain sick!
Posted by SexyLatina 8 years ago
SexyLatina
Worst grammar? Do you say that because my sentences are sophisticated? Here, I'll try to ammend the situation.
My profile is obviously a joke. My user name is SexyLatina. You do not catch onto sarcasm. That is obvious.
Let me ask you a few questions. Do you know when you are being monitored? Have you heard about the innocent people who were accused of terrorism? Do you believe that monitoring the American people is a better solution than improving security? Would it not be easier to use the money for that instead? I have one final question. Have you heard of the Gestapo in Germany? In World War II they monitored people secretly, also.
Finally, a magpie is a kind of bird. You are a magpie. Your arguments are invalid.

P.S. Why would I go to China?
Posted by Kierkegaard 8 years ago
Kierkegaard
Magpie: is retarded.

You reference to Sexylatina as 'it' makes no sense. Regardless of whether or not he actually is a male or a female, what does that matter against his arguments? You're just avoiding the subject at hand.

How does he have bad grammar...? Enlighten me.

The communist comment is simply stupid, since his profile is obviously a joke. But, disregarding the joke part, which is worse: conservatism, or communism? I think the answer is obviously conservatism.

What makes you think the government can't monitor a large group of people? If they were to go about it secretly, you wouldn't be able to know in the first place, and you're unable to make such claims. It's like saying that a god exists. You just don't know.

If Sexylatina wants to live without fear, then the best choice probably wouldn't be China or the US. Technically, there's an extremely low probability that he'll ever be able to live without fear of some sort. However, the US strives to hit that goal, and gets as close as they can.

Stop being a cloddish cretin.
Posted by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
sexylatina: Describes itself as male. Hmmm! 'It' has close to the worst grammar on the site but 'it' is correct in the WWII, issue. I failed to hold the shift key. I feel immense shame!
You may be sure that I share Sadolite's ideology, while 'it' shares the ideology of Stalin, Castro, and Mao. What a wonderful crowd!
The govt. doesn't have the capacity to listen to more than a few of the most dangerous targets. If Johnicle is living in fear of his communications being monitored, he probably is (just slightly) paranoid.
If 'It' wants to live without fear, perhaps China would be preferential to the US.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
"The most basic freedom is the right to live" Ahh Does that include unborn children? The right to live is questionable wouldn't you say?
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
JohnicleMitchPagliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sdcharger 8 years ago
sdcharger
JohnicleMitchPagliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
JohnicleMitchPagliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by FoolsBeBroken 8 years ago
FoolsBeBroken
JohnicleMitchPagliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
JohnicleMitchPagliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by MitchPaglia 8 years ago
MitchPaglia
JohnicleMitchPagliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by kkcatlvr 8 years ago
kkcatlvr
JohnicleMitchPagliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
JohnicleMitchPagliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 8 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
JohnicleMitchPagliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
JohnicleMitchPagliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07